(January 9, 2018 at 9:31 am)Khemikal Wrote:(January 9, 2018 at 9:26 am)Grandizer Wrote: There's no need to go anywhere else.If you're content with magic book as a historical source then you're content with magic book as a historical source. I have reservations. Cheifly, that the christian textual apparatus is known to have produced massive fabrications out of absolutely nothing, lol.
Quote:Analysing texts for consistency in style is what these scholars have done to determine that there was probably a guy who really was called Paul who wrote those epistles which we know exist.They're taking magic books word for it. A theological and -historic- explanation of the character, and changing character of "Paul"...however, does not depend upon the existence of a historical paul.
Quote:Even Richard Carrier (a Jesus mythicist) argues for the probability of Paul being historical.Perhaps you could present what you feel to be the strongest point in that argument?
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643
There are books (or copies of manuscripts, rather) which we know exist. Some of them are letters written to the various churches. Among these letters are letters attributed to a single person called Paul with consistency in style of writing/language (as determined by scholars). So, according to scholars, it's reasonable to assume (in the absence of controversial evidence) there was a single guy who authored these letters. Now, there were other letters also attributed to Paul, but using textual analysis, scholars were able to detect inconsistencies and/or forgeries, considering several other factors (such as agenda of the author, the theologies described, the aim of the message), so they reason that this could not have been the same Paul who authored the other letters. For specific details on this and that, refer to the scholars of course.
You can read Richard Carrier at your own pace, when you're in the mood for it.
